Lacore v. Leonard
45 Cal. 394
Opinion
The plaintiff’s lien had expired before his action was-commenced. He took judgment foreclosing the lien, and directing a sale of the property by default; but on the next [395] day, the matter being called to the attention of the Court, it was ordered that the judgment be so modified as to give him a money judgment only. There was no error in the action of the Court in this respect.
J udgment affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Lacore v. Leonard, 45 Cal. 394 (Cal. 1873).
45 Cal. 394 (Lacore v. Leonard) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Becker v. Superior Court of Santa Clara Cty.
90 P. 689 (California Supreme Court, 1907)
Miller v. Carlisle
59 P. 785 (California Supreme Court, 1899)
Ascha v. Fitch
46 P. 298 (California Supreme Court, 1896)